Not much. On Thursday night, France’s leftist parliament passed a rash of tax hikes intended to generate new revenues required to meet its budget deficit targets. For all intents and purposes, however, that action represented a near systematic reversal of Sarkozy’s main policy achievements. Not surprisingly, opposition conservatives are howling at the ruling Socialists for taking the legislative eraser to Sarkozy-era reforms, decrying on economic and ideological grounds that kind of solution to France’s debt-borne crisis and sluggishness.

The legislative moves came as part of the passage of a wider bill seeking to address an enormous short-fall in budget funding discovered by an audit of state accounts ordered by Socialist President François Hollande immediately after his election three months ago. The result: Socialist leaders hit the “delete” button on virtually all major Sarkozy reforms.

The most symbolic reversal was the decision to resume taxing overtime pay—and putting an end to state subsidies used to finance that exemption. That marks the end to Sarkozy’s cornerstone legislation seeking to coax people to increase their disposable income–and boost business productivity—by working extra hours for de-taxed pay. “Work more to earn more” had served as the political potent slogan of Sarkozy’s successful 2007 presidential campaign, in which he promised to deliver increased economic activity, revenue, and wealth through liberalizing labor reform.

In reality, the innovation did little to lift employee income, and cost the state over $30 billion in subsides. Moreover, critics contend, the measure inspired companies to avoid hiring new workers from among the unemployed, and instead compelled existing staffers to work longer hours that—thanks to state underwriting—were suddenly cheaper for employers.

“It cost ($6 billion) a year without doing much for economic activity and growth,” government spokesperson Najat Vallaud-Belkacem told France Info radio Thursday.

The leftist airbrushing of Sarkozy policies didn’t stop there. Others repealed a law adopted by the right earlier this year that cut salary-based charges that employers finance, shifting those costs to the general public in the form of a value-added tax increase. The leftist majority also approved a hike in taxes on the assets of wealthier people that Sarkozy lowered in August, 2007, part of a host of similar cuts denounced by the left as favoring the affluent and businesses. After the Socialist action on Thursday, France’s richest household will see their wealth taxes rise from 14% to a wallet-frightening 143%.

There’s more. Another portion of the revised budget bill passed Thursday imposes a one-off supplementary tax on households whose assets surpass $1.3 million. Even members of Hollande’s Socialist cabinet were upfront about the moves. How else can it be described than soaking of the rich? “This exceptional contribution is a harsh effort being demanded from those who can afford to make it,” commented junior budget minister, Jérôme Cahuzac.

The privileged classes may have been dunned but there is no populist dancing going on in streets. The bill passed Thursday—which will now clear routine legislative procedures before becoming law by August—makes good on Hollande’s campaign promises to enforce social “justice” by making the rich shoulder their share of France’s pain. But the French public is aware that the squeeze on fatter wallets won’t forestall pressure on more meager pocketbooks. Indeed, conservatives argue that overturning Sarkozy’s de-taxation of overtime is less a raid on corporate coffers than it is an inhibition for people to work for more income by way of overtime in the first place. According to Laurent Wauquiez—whose multiple cabinet roles under Sarkozy included secretary of state for employment—the overtime tax revision will immediately reduce incomes of 9.5 million employees by as much as 7%. “François Hollande knowingly lied about overtime,” Wauquiez said on France Info Wednesday. “The law before us is exactly the opposite of what he said during the campaign, (when) we were told only businesses will pay the cost. Ninety percent of that charge will in fact go to employees.”

Not surprisingly, Socialist government officials contest that analysis. They also maintain that conservatives are poorly positioned to dispense lessons in social equity, given the dismal state the right has left France. In fact, Sarkozy’s own government started pulling back some of the president’s beloved reforms in mid-2011, when the euro and debt crisis threatened to infect France and send Paris’ borrowing costs to unsustainable levels.

In France we have a big problem : a lot of people who used to vote socialist doesn't accept capitalist economy . Furthermore the Socialist Party is the party of civil servants . They know nothing in firms, industry, only through the trade unions (communist, leftist, ..)

The last IMF director, D Strauss Kahn is the father of the 35 hour-week !

I really think that Sarkosi's idea about not taxing overtime is stupid.

How can government control overtime? Put a clock meter at each and every workplace? What stops me from hiring someone for 8 hours, claim he worked for 12 hours, and cut taxes by, essentially, cheating?

Income is, essentially, income.

What's worse, where this stupid idea that working longer hours increases productivity? Productivity is a measure of output per hour worked - no matter how many people work, and whether it is overtime or not.

@LoudRambler @LoudRambler especially in f.i. the creative industries people typically only have so much good ideas per day. it doesn't matter if they write those ideas down in 5 hours, or that they stall for 10 hours. their overall output will still pretty much be the same.

there's also the issue of people getting tired after long work-days or using 'free time' for education and other stuff that will increase their productivity.

that're just some of the reasons why countries with lots of parttime-workers tend to have much higher productivity-per-workhour.

so really, a powerhungry boss might like the sight of his underlings slaving away in front of him, trying to outdo each other in worked hours. but if he's interested in the success of his company than a very different management-style is in order: focusing more on actual output than on timeclocks.

English speaking media and right-wingers constantly talk about France as if it were some sort of basket-case banana republic destined for inevitable collapse under the weight of all those Socialist policies.

Funny, France seems to consistently rank amongst nations with the highest standards of living anywhere on Earth. Unlike... oh, say, the United States? Which repeatedly ranks amongst the worst of the developed world in healthcare, education, gun violence, quality of life, and almost everything else one can think of?

Yeah. Sure. You lot enjoy those perverted corporate 'freedoms' you consistently strive for and which most of you can't afford to exercise.

"But the French public is aware that the squeeze on fatter wallets won’t forestall pressure on more meager pocketbooks."

Indeed. By going after the weathy first, François Hollande is astutely heading off trouble from strike-prone unions, whose members will be next in line to feel the effects of government retrenchment. They will surely decry any effort to reign in their gold-plated benefits by engaging in what has in the past often looked like nothing less than insurrection.

There are larger issues at play here, including the precarious state of the Euro, and the need for continued support from a financially sound Germany. Chancellor Merkel will have a much easier time getting agreement to keep using Germany as the backstop to the entire EU bank system if the #2 economy in the area works - led by a socialist no less- on getting its house in order.

What parasites? People who would be living on the streets if it wasn't for unemployment, to which I may add, they made contributions to have access to while they were working? Or the other parasites are the children who are provided with Medicaid? Or the families that are given food stamps? Those parasites? I rather feed them all than allow you and your kind to keep 2% more of your income. I bet you are a "good" Christian, aren't you? Like "good" and "Christian" were not an oxymoron!

If the Dems get their way, this is exactly what's about to happen. And the Dems are now doing exactly what they decried the Repubs for doing last year holding America hostage over the debt ceiling. Now it's class warfare taxes for the rich.

It's not like the rich aren't cheating (see: LIBOR scandal and the thousands of financial executives in prison right now .... and of course their are the ones that keep getting awaqy with it) to get their wealth, or to keep it growing .......

See how that works? If conservatives can imply that everyone on welfare is a criminal and lazy, then liberals can say every financial executive is cheating and a blood sucking leach ...... bring on the war! Luckily we can get all sorts of assault weapons and body armor whenever we feel like it these days ....

No zero tax liability, no earned income credit, tax social security (it's just a government run 401k / pension), phase out the child tax credit over four years, and make a serious dent in corporate tax loopholes and credits.

And, government has to get smaller, meaning pay, benefits and job cuts. It's been going on now for five years at the local and state levels, so it's time for the federal government to pay the piper. Again, the prudent health care reform approach would have been to prove costs could be cut before expanding coverage.I would support Ron Paul but he's an ideologue. So, Ron, you want to cut $1,000,000,000,000 out of the federal budget in the first year? Really? And you wonder why you're such a long shot. Great overall plan, brother, but you need to ease up on the cool-aid.Take care!

All good points and a good discussion ... I guess the biggest problem I have about health care is that I can't reconcile using the current capitalist system (or even the system before obamacare) for our health when the doctors won't let the people that can't pay for their care or have no insurance go untreated ..... I mean, isn't the main reason insurance companies continuously raise premiums and the hospitals charge $28 for an aspirin because they are "covering the uninsured" in the first place?I mostly didn't mind McCain (he picked the wrong running mate though, speaking of idealogues) except for the glaring fact that he was an integral part of the Samp;L scandal and he has always been big on bailing out the airlines, and he seemed to be caving to the pressure from the far right about certain laws regarding "morality." I do think he would have done better across the aisle though as far as legislation is concerned. I guess I just want to see a sense of fairness again (i.e if you're going to cut back on welfare because you want to stop "paying welfare recipients to have kids," then you need to be fair and get rid of the child tax credit as well (which basically "pays everyone to have kids"). Get rid of corporate welfare like bankruptcy protection ..... I think if you are going to reap the spoils in profits when you do well, you should also take the hits when things go bad without whining for a bailout or a tax break.

Any fiscal conservative that thinks the budget deficit can't be closed by raising taxes in addition to spending cuts is an idiot. The question is how are taxes to be raised and by why ratio to budget cuts. Real tax reform is the answer. I'm not even sure if Grover supports tax reform.

Obama's is clearly a socialist ideologue. He knows he can't create the change he wants in 4-8 years, but he knows his presidency will greatly determine how things play out over the coming decades. If he could pass an Amnesty Bill, he would do it in a heart beat, because he knows it would solidify the left leaning of this country. His passing health care reform is also a clear sign. He wants us dependent on the government. He has done nothing of substance to make government smaller and more accountable.

Why isn't Obama trying harder to implement policies that help private business create jobs? #1. He wants government to create jobs. #2. He wants to raise taxes on small business, which will be a job killer. He squandered his mandate on health care instead of passing reforms that would create jobs. He doesn't want the economy to improve, because that would alleviate our dependency on the government.

But I'm under no illusion that Romney will do the things that are necessary to make a run at changing the structural problems with our economy. The less he talks about what specific things he'd do, the less likely he's going to be successful. And if he picks a VP other than Ryan, he has no intention of putting forth a real plan to eliminate our budget deficits over a reasonable 7-10 year period.

America's problems will be solved by people that push for down the middle change using compromise as the catalyst. Obama and Norquist are ideologues. America has no room that these types of people. McCain would have been a vastly superior president for no other reason than he's not an ideologue and knows how to compromise.

Also we have to remember it takes 2/3 of a majority to make any serious changes to the way our govt. operates, and we haven't had that since the last amendment was passed. There are plenty of democrats causing problems too, but the only people I ever see "crossing party lines" these days are democrats. I would love to hear an instance where the opposite was true, thoiugh, if you could find one ....

since we won't have any real change regardoing the economy with either party, I would rather vote for the party that is not trying to legislate their own twisted version of morality to make people think they are actually doing something.

The problem I have with Obama being an idealogue is the facts just aren't there to support that theory. He ran on change (I know hope was in that slogan too, but most of us realists concentrated on the change part). The majority of this country wanted that change because they (we) were tired of the same old song and dance, perpetuated by both parties over time (the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act by all ut a handful of politicians on both sides should have been that red flag. The biggest problem I have with the idealogue type label is I remember the words coming straight from Mitch McConnell saying he would do everything in his power to block anything Obama tried to accomplish. I also remember Grover Norquist and his no tax pledge (hardly a compromise friendly stance).

My bad. I can be slow at times picking up on subtle sarcasm. I hope it doesn't come down to what you're joking about. But I do have my doubts. America is extremely polarized, and it's unlikely to get better anytime soon, especially with our Greece moment arriving sooner than most people realize.

I often wonder what things would be like if McCain had been elected. Widely considered to be a maverick, I believe he would have brought America together more, which is the exact opposite of what Obama has done.

We need more politicians that are down the middle. One of the reasons I like Romney is that he's considered to be a great negotiator and not an ideologue like Obama. It will be extremely interesting once Obama is out of office and to hear people inside his administration to expound on what it was like working under him. Again, I have my doubts about his willingness to listen to his advisers and to change course if needed, which is something I think McCain is well capable of doing.

Our problems aren't going to be solved by the fringe elements of either party.

I thought that WAS the point I was making, (about conservatives and liberals being basically just 2 sides of the same coin). I was being sarcastic, which I thought was obvious considering my last sentence.

Um, bro, the REAL problem is enforcement. Maybe in Europe, they'll show themselves to be a lot less lenient than we have. For example, how many of the fat cats that creating these bad loan programs and committed fraud have been prosecuted and sent to jail?

And Clinton started that one through his support of ACORN. Bush let it continue and then it fell into Obama's lap. Why hasn't Obama used the Justice Department to put people in jail? It has been his responsibility to do so.

So to sit here and act like the whole lot of them aren't cut from the same mold is a joke, one that is full of hypocrisy.

Or the wealthey 1% whose income went up by 20% over the last 10 years, while everyone elses income went down due to an economic crises they were involved in starting (that was just before they got theit million dollar bonusses for running a bank into the ground and needing tax dollars to bail them out)?

Are those the ones whose taxbreaks you are defending? Those Republican introduced Bush era taxbreaks which Obama wants to discontinue?

Seems they can take quite good care of themselves to me...

Dont get me wrong, the government needs to be lean and efficient in doing the tasks required of it. Ie, not grow into a mama-state which guzzles up mountains of cash to perpetuate itself.

But the funding for essential government spending and reducing the deficit and national debt can come for a significantly greater part from those who have more than plenty. Dont tell me that Warren Buffet paying less tax than his secratary is a good thing, its simply wrong.

@rahonavis:disqus I would agree 100% with your point. They're all crooks and hypocrites. But, I'll give Boehner a slight edge, because he's at least trying to cut a deal to do something about our deficits. Obama simply wants to pervade class-warfare to put funding towards PPACA BUT HE WON'T COME OUT AND ADMIT THAT THIS IS WHAT THE ~$68B TAX HIKE IS FOR.

Here's my biggest problem with Obama. He's not serious about creating jobs. He spent his political capital on health care, not creating jobs. He knowingly used this approach in order to get re-elected. He now has 30 million people in his pocket via free or heavily subsidized health care. And the recent information about how his economic council has not met in such a long time versus his 100 fund raisers and vacations are just sickening. At least W went cold turkey and gave up golf for the remainder of his term after 9/11.

The universal health care goal is noble and good, but we simply can't afford this right now. A better approach would have been to pass reforms that were shown to cut health care costs and THEN brought more people on board. My gawd, people, health care is bankrupting this country. Does anyone honestly think PPACA isn't going to cost more money, adjusted for inflation, five to seven years from now, when it's fully implemented?

And you're URL is hardly an indictment of the TF's information, especially what I've posted above, which would be very hard to fudge around. It's straight forward historical numbers not forward looking assumption as to the article that you posted from Krugman.

Krugman, are you kidding me? If he had is way, we'd be printing money left and right, not doing a thing to fix the structural problems of our economy.

Oh and I would be careful about trusting the tax foundation as a non-partisan source given that one of their current directors is a former Texas Republican congressman (BIll Archer), a former director (till 2008) was chairman of Bush's council of economic advisers. They had a former Reagan Budget director (and failed republican candidate), a Koch industry director who also worked for Americans for prosperity (Wayne E. Gable) and a couple of ex-Mobil people. That does not mean they are wrong necessarily, but means that you should treat their findings as you would any other partisan think tank, not as you would a truly non-partisan group.

The most important table is on page 8. Compare the top 1% versus the bottom 50%.

And more importantly, you completely dodged the main point of my post. Here, let me restate it for you.

The Dems are about to hold the American people hostage over raising taxes on the wealthy just like the Repubs did last year over the debt ceiling. Again, this is such unspeakable hypocrisy that it boggles the mind. America is $16,400,000,000,000 in debt, which is growing by $1,400,000,000,000 every year.

And to top it off, the Repubs offered a debt increase deal that was attached to closing tax loopholes that the Dems walked away from. And what did we get? Sequestration or mandatory cuts. Nice!!! Let's see how that turns out.

We need REAL TAX REFORM, not indiscriminate tax class-warfare just to fund PPACA.

Well at least in terms of the tax cuts, that's exactly what may happen. The Dems decried the Repubs for holding America hostage last year over the debt limit. OMG, and exactly what are the Dems trying to do over the Bush tax cuts? Hold America hostage. Either increase taxes on $250K and above or everyone becomes whack a mole. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. And what exactly does Obama plan to do with the ~$68B? Apply the money to ObamaCare funding, which is something NO ONE is talking about. By the time Obama finishes his 1st four year term, he will have added nearly $7,000,000,000,000 to the national debt. In eight years, Bush only added a little more than $4T.

Once again, an educated journalist who should know better feeds American ignorance with the improper use of the term "disposable income". Contrary what many think, "disposable income" is not left over money one can spend on luxury. "Disposable income" is money that must be disposed of on rent, utilities, insurance, mortgage, etc. After all the essential bills have been paid, what's left over is "discretionary income" - income one can spend at one's discretion. I don't correct people when I hear it in conversation, but when a respected magazine that is supposed to represent the best of American journalism, and by extension the best grammar and usage practices, I feel someone must speak up.